Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[novice]

So novice, if Norway held a referendum to join the EU with the same "special status" provisions Cameron secured for the UK, would you vote yes or no? Would you expect the measure to pass or fail?

Darrell

I don't know the details of those provisions, but as for Norway:

The EU debate in Norway has been put to rest after narrow No results in referendums in 1972 and 1994(?). We're good with the current arrangements though. We have access to the market, we share the EU regulations, we have free movement, we pay our dues, we're also part of Schengen (unlike the UK), and we have exemptions on some matters such as fishery rights. What we're missing is representation in the EU parliament and the Euro. But a common currency without a common budget has been shown to be a shaky proposition anyway.

I think EU would have to change in some significant manner for the EU debate to be reopened in Norway. If we had a referendum today I would vote yes if we could keep our own currency and no otherwise. I would expect the result to be a third narrow no.

[Bacchus]

Another fun thing is that after the whole Johnson-Gove fallout, all three major parties are effectively in ruins. And there aren't viable replacements even on the horizon (UKIP and Greens are a joke organisationally). One hopes for a new party system to emerge, but realistically it seems that we will just have zombie political organisations for an indeterminate amount of time.

[gsorel]

Pounded by the pound: Brexit inspires its first erotic novel

Brexit has produced its first work of literature, in the form of an erotic novel depicting a relationship between a man and a “massive, sentient” pound coin.

Article by Adam Gabbat @ theguardian.com

[picklepikkl]

Chuck Tingle is a huge troll. This is the person that the * Puppies nominated for a Hugo in order to thumb their nose at the award, so they countered by saying they'd be unable to attend in person (Chuck Tingle is an obvious pseudonym and the author is unknown), so Zoe Quinn (she of Gamergate fame) would attend in their stead. One of their books is "Pounded in the Butt by My Own Butt," for crying out loud.

[Brian Shanahan]

Why anyone votes for someone who so utterly goes against both their own interests (I cannot see how a Trump presidency will help anyone,

So here's the argument I've personally found most convincing: a vote for Trump is a vote for deadlock. Remember, the US is *not* a parliamentary system. Just because Trump is nominally a Republican is no reason to expect the party in Congress to cooperate with him. On top, he's not a professional politician, which means it's quite likely that when he *can* find something to cooperate with Congress about, it'll be Congress in the driver's seat and Trump as the figurehead.

Stupid argument. Four years of getting nothing done is simply four years farther down the road of neo-liberalism. And if it is one thing that the US doesn't need is another four years of kowtowing to banks and other multinationals.

[Brian Shanahan]

Remain were incredibly arrogant and hugely patronising. Shown perhaps even moreso in the fallout. People stating that their lives are in tatters. Calling all people with different opinion to them either idiots, or not worthy of an opinion as they are older than them and have less life to live. This is the same entitled class that could not grasp the 2015 election result, that Corbyn is kryptonite with large portions of the electorate and that AV is the only sensible choice.

Every single politician who supported leave is, objectively speaking, a lying piece of shit. When you look at what was said by both sides, the remains have been actually pretty accurate with their warnings (once you leave out wankers like Call me Dave and A name too Jewish for a future PM), whereas the leaves actually proved that faster than light speeds were possible with their retractions of their referendum promises. Plus it became obvious within a few hours that all the referendum was to them was a big game of advancement through dead man's shoes. They had no argument, they had no plans for if they won, and they definitely didn't want to carry the responsibility of their actions (thus showing that for them the referendum wasn't about the EU but backstabbing Cameron).

And yet you still want to tell me that the side who, maybe, exaggerated slightly, are far worse than the side that sold their country for the illusion of a chance at power?

[Brian Shanahan]

If Remain had won instead, I highly doubt you'd be saying "well, guess I have to support Britain's membership of the EU forever now."

That's interesting. It leaves me wondering, why was the referendum held in the first place? If not for this, then why?

(I haven't been paying attention to this whole Brexit thing before after the fact, it didn't get a lot of coverage in Norway, presumably because everyone considered it a formality.)

The whole point of the referendum in the first place was to try and stop the geriatrics in the shires from defecting en masse to the Kippers. Call me Dave was at the time of the election shitting himself over a strong Labour fightback. He didn't factor in that Miliband was a bigger wuss than he was.

[ReallyEvilMuffin]

Remain were incredibly arrogant and hugely patronising. Shown perhaps even moreso in the fallout. People stating that their lives are in tatters. Calling all people with different opinion to them either idiots, or not worthy of an opinion as they are older than them and have less life to live. This is the same entitled class that could not grasp the 2015 election result, that Corbyn is kryptonite with large portions of the electorate and that AV is the only sensible choice.

Every single politician who supported leave is, objectively speaking, a lying piece of shit. When you look at what was said by both sides, the remains have been actually pretty accurate with their warnings (once you leave out wankers like Call me Dave and A name too Jewish for a future PM), whereas the leaves actually proved that faster than light speeds were possible with their retractions of their referendum promises. Plus it became obvious within a few hours that all the referendum was to them was a big game of advancement through dead man's shoes. They had no argument, they had no plans for if they won, and they definitely didn't want to carry the responsibility of their actions (thus showing that for them the referendum wasn't about the EU but backstabbing Cameron).

And yet you still want to tell me that the side who, maybe, exaggerated slightly, are far worse than the side that sold their country for the illusion of a chance at power?

Complete tosh. Brexit's identity cannot be known until it is negotiated. This cannot be done unless the other side will negotiate, and no one would waste time negotiating on a possibility. They are not the government and so are not in charge of reaching a negotiated settlement.

[Bobchillingworth]

Stupid argument. Four years of getting nothing done is simply four years farther down the road of neo-liberalism. And if it is one thing that the US doesn't need is another four years of kowtowing to banks and other multinationals.

I'm more worried about four years of entropy. Infrastructure falling apart, millions still uninsured while healthcare costs continue to spiral out of control, executive power growing by default in a vacuum of Congressional action, constant threats of default and government shutdowns followed by economic panics, emergency funding for various disasters being locked in limbo (hell, Congress can't even function well enough to fund Zika protection now). The United States Federal government exists for a reason; intentionally hoping for gridlock is foolish beyond reason and reckless in the extreme.


I am kind of surprised by your reaction to neo-liberalism, isn't that more in keeping with the "leave" campaign?

[Gavagai]

Why anyone votes for someone who so utterly goes against both their own interests (I cannot see how a Trump presidency will help anyone,

So here's the argument I've personally found most convincing: a vote for Trump is a vote for deadlock. Remember, the US is *not* a parliamentary system. Just because Trump is nominally a Republican is no reason to expect the party in Congress to cooperate with him. On top, he's not a professional politician, which means it's quite likely that when he *can* find something to cooperate with Congress about, it'll be Congress in the driver's seat and Trump as the figurehead.

Stupid argument. Four years of getting nothing done is simply four years farther down the road of neo-liberalism. And if it is one thing that the US doesn't need is another four years of kowtowing to banks and other multinationals.

This argument works for people who support "neo-liberalism" or at least prefer it to progressive programm. From my perspective, for example, almost anything, including Trump, is better than turning civilized world into USSR-lite. Of course, if you are a progressive yourself, you should vote for Clinton.